compose_pause

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. Description adds substantial behavioral context: what happens to processes (frozen), what resources are retained (memory, network endpoints, state), and crucially the non-raising CLI behavior requiring returncode/stderr inspection. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

First sentence states the core action. Second provides key trade-offs and alternatives. Third covers error behavior. Args list is concise and directly follows. Every sentence earns its place; no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers purpose, usage distinctions, behavioral nuances (process freezing, resource retention), error handling, parameters with defaults, and return format (dict with returncode, stdout, stderr, truncated). No output schema exists, so the return description is sufficient. Complete for a compose control tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% coverage, but description includes an args section with clear semantics and defaults for all 4 parameters: services (restrict, default all), project_dir (default server cwd, remote copy note), files (explicit -f paths), project_name (override). This fully compensates for missing schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool pauses compose project containers ('Pause the containers of a compose project') and explicitly differentiates from siblings: resume with compose_unpause, stop with compose_stop, and stop+delete with compose_down. The verb and resource are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, including semantic differences ('Paused containers stop consuming CPU but keep memory, network endpoints, and state') and direct references to compose_unpause, compose_stop, and compose_down. Also notes error behavior (does not raise on non-zero CLI exit) and how to inspect results.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.